As the year winds down, development teams often experience a slowdown in new feature requests. This natural lull provides an ideal opportunity to step back and conduct a thorough QA audit of your product—something that can be challenging to prioritize during busier times.

Have you ever used software that functions well but is frustrating to use? This disconnect doesn't just lead to poor user experiences; it erodes software quality at its core.

In the rush to get new products/features out the door, Quality Assurance (QA) professionals face constant pressure to deliver thorough testing under tight deadlines.

In today's digital landscape, accessibility should be more than just a checkbox—it should be a fundamental aspect of quality software development.

2025 is bringing about significant shifts in QA, from how we think about testing to who performs it. Let's check out the key trends reshaping software quality and how they impact product development.

How often have you tried to use a web app on your phone only to find that key features were inaccessible? Or attempted to fill out a form on your tablet that was clearly designed with only desktop users in mind? These annoyances happen all the time and highlight why cross-device testing is so important.

There’s a common challenge in QA: ubiquitous terms that everyone assumes they understand, but that often lack a universal definition. User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is one of those terms. It frequently leads to confusion—what exactly is UAT? Is it simply Acceptance Testing with a user-focused approach, or is it an entirely separate step in the testing lifecycle? And, more importantly, why does it matter?

CTOs are actively considering cutting down their QA teams to be replaced by automation and AI, while QA engineers are questioning their future role in the industry. These concerns stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of AI's role in quality assurance. While many think the transformation that we’re seeing is about replacement, it is instead about redefinition.

With the evolution of software development methodologies over the decades, we’ve seen agile practices gaining widespread adoption across the industry. As organizations strive to deliver high-quality software at an accelerated pace, the role of testing within the agile framework has become increasingly crucial.

The trend of skipping documentation is becoming more common, and it's causing issues that affect product quality and team efficiency. Let's look at why documentation matters and what risks companies take when they don't prioritize it.

Is your QA team constantly catching bugs, but the product still isn’t improving? It might not be a QA problem—it could be a company-wide issue. In software development, thorough testing and quality assurance (QA) processes are essential for delivering robust, reliable products. However, the effectiveness of QA efforts rely on a critical factor that extends beyond the QA team itself: organizational buy-in. Understanding the importance of company-wide commitment to quality is key in transforming the entire development process and achieving true QA success.

Thorough quality assurance isn't just a checkpoint—it's a competitive advantage. As software systems become increasingly integrated and complex, the need for robust, data-driven QA strategies has never been more critical. Unfortunately, many organizations still struggle to quantify and optimize their QA processes effectively.

One of the largest sources of contention between Developers, QA, and Product is what constitutes "done.” We've had countless instances in which "we", as QA, have said the work is not done as all the acceptance criteria have not been met, only to hear from Product or Development, "oh those AC don't really matter, just pass it anyway.” This contention comes from a lack of formalizing the Definition of Done (DoD) for the work, be it a specific feature, sprint, or even tickets themselves.

As QA professionals, our job is to uncover bugs before they reach the end user. To do this effectively, we incorporate QA as an ongoing process that spans the entire software development lifecycle. We like to compare software development to building a house, with QA serving as the various stages of inspection as the house is being built. We're involved from the initial planning stage to the final implementation, ensuring quality at every step.

In an age dominated by AI and automation, the question "Is manual QA necessary?" has become increasingly important. While automation and AI play crucial roles in quality assurance, manual QA is not only necessary but essential. This article will explore the unique value of manual QA, its limitations, and where it proves indispensable. We'll also examine the role of automated testing and AI in software development, and how these can be used as important tools in a comprehensive QA approach.